I assume that in this deal, the players wages are to be paid by the loan club (i.e. cas paying Rankins wage)? I can't see what's in it for Hudds otherwise, I know Rankin was one of the highest paid players there and I can't see them wanting to bring Wardle in for effectively the same money.

I'm not sure what Wardle was on at Cas but they are potentially increasing the wage bill if they are paying Rankin.

I assume that in this deal, the players wages are to be paid by the loan club (i.e. cas paying Rankins wage)? I can't see what's in it for Hudds otherwise, I know Rankin was one of the highest paid players there and I can't see them wanting to bring Wardle in for effectively the same money.

I'm not sure what Wardle was on at Cas but they are potentially increasing the wage bill if they are paying Rankin.

I think a lot of people are confusing what they think the rules/laws around the salary cap should be & what they actually are. Salary cap relief is an option available to every team in SL, providing certain conditions are met. Cas are not getting any kind of preferential treatment; we are merely making use of an obscure/rarely used option. I liken it to the salary cap itself. A great number of people believe the salary cap is a fixed number that cannot be broken. However, there are exemptions/dispensations such as the club trained player, player welfare, returning talent, international status, educational needs, new talent & marquee status. All of this dispensations can be used by any club, but arenâ€™t. Equally; use of these exemptions will take a club over the â€śsalary capâ€ť; are they cheating? No; they are taking advantage of options available to every club should they wish to pursue them. This exemption Cas are utilising is no different.

I think a lot of people are confusing what they think the rules/laws around the salary cap should be & what they actually are. Salary cap relief is an option available to every team in SL, providing certain conditions are met. Cas are not getting any kind of preferential treatment; we are merely making use of an obscure/rarely used option. I liken it to the salary cap itself. A great number of people believe the salary cap is a fixed number that cannot be broken. However, there are exemptions/dispensations such as the club trained player, player welfare, returning talent, international status, educational needs, new talent & marquee status. All of this dispensations can be used by any club, but arenâ€™t. Equally; use of these exemptions will take a club over the â€śsalary capâ€ť; are they cheating? No; they are taking advantage of options available to every club should they wish to pursue them. This exemption Cas are utilising is no different.

No, people understand the rule and that dispensation can be allowed in certain circumstances, the question is whether picking up an injury in training should be one of these circumstances.

"The Golden Generation finally has its Golden Fleece! They have Wembley Cup Final winners medals to add to their collection."

People donâ€™t seem to understand the difference between two scenarios:

One where a player plays in competitive games and gets injured either for the rest of the season, or a long period of time with a chance of returning. In both scenarios, the exemption would be unavailable because the player has played in a salary cap game, eg the Challenge Cup or Super League.

Gale is out for the season. To all intents and purposes heâ€™s nothing more than a club employee. He may as well be sat in the Media department. He will not participate in any club game at all in 2019. Therefore, his salary shouldnâ€™t (and rightly so for any player who doesnâ€™t play in SL/CC that year) count on the salary cap until he can make a playing return. Otherwise you would argue that all clubs should be counting all reserves and academy players outside the top 25 on the cap too because they are being paid by the club.

The only way that Gale could return this season to account for his salary is if they make and clear the appropriate space to accommodate his salary. Given his injury is likely to be 6 months plus 2 months rehab for a pre-existing injury to his knee last year, it takes us to September. Itâ€™s unlikely Cas will risk him returning with no match fitness and preseason and 12 months spent on the sideline, and even then we would have to be both in the top 5 and playoffs for him to have a chance, albeit pointless.

Therefore in the same vein you wouldnâ€™t count a signing for 2020 in 2019, Galeâ€™s salary shouldnâ€™t count. Not only does it put any club, not just Cas, at a disadvantage by having money tied up in a player who canâ€™t do anything, it also means that the clubs do not have the flexibility to be able to get cover in should further injuries occur during the season. Even if they did, itâ€™s likely the exemption would be granted anyway so whatâ€™s the difference?

For those suggesting Gale shouldnâ€™t still count because heâ€™s still employed, wow. Whereâ€™s the moral compass? Cas should terminate his contract to get rid of his salary? The bloke has just suffered a serious injury that could potentially not only affect this season but jeopardise his entire career. He has a family and mortgage to pay just like the majority of us on here. You get sick pay when you are ill from work. Cas should do the right thing by their employee and that is stick by him and support him both financially and mentally.

We arenâ€™t having an advantage over any other club. We are still spending the same salary cap on players who can play as any other club, and can only pay the same amount as others. Galeâ€™s salary is nothing more than an off-field salary now until he is ready to return, which probably be January 2020.

Personally I see no issue with exemptions for season-long injuries providing they are season-long and occur in pre-season. Those that happen in season have still contributed to the clubâ€™s season, even if it happens in the first game. Thatâ€™s unfortunate but they have still played. This is more than likely come out in the wash because of the high profile nature and speculation, and because Cas have confirmed it. I find it incredibly difficult to believe that no other club hasnâ€™t ever used such exemptions in the past and even it would be their choice not to exercise it.

Cas have clearly justified sufficiently that Gale will play no part through medical evidence and with specific rules about any return too placed on them.

Quick Reply

All views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the RLFANS.COM or it's subsites.

Whilst every effort is made to ensure that news stories, articles and images are correct, we cannot be held responsible for errors. However, if you feel any material on this website is copyrighted or incorrect in any way please contact us using the link at the top of the page so we can remove it or negotiate copyright permission.

RLFANS.COM, the owners of this website, is not responsible for the content of its sub-sites or posts, please email the author of this sub-site or post if you feel you find an article offensive or of a choice nature that you disagree with.